Colleges practicing affirmative action for men to address the gender imbalance in higher education; women do not like it; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will investigate it.

Feckless · 2009-11-02T19:43:52+00:00

I am also not happy with this. We have to get at the root of the problem and look at earlier education which favorites girls over boys.

rmbarnes · 2009-11-02T19:44:50+00:00

It's a small retribution for all the qualified talented young men who lost their positions to women just for them being women. But hey, it's all for the greater good, isn't it?

I've never liked this argument. It basically says one man should get the retribution from another man's ill treatment. This reminds me of women who say that it's their turn because they've been oppressed for thousands of years, and I day to them they're looking great for someone who's thousands of years old.

I don't like quotas.

The main thing is they aren't fixing the problem here (lack of male role models, they way boys are taught in school) just merely treating the symptoms, which is not a long term strategy.

2009-11-03T02:21:49+00:00

I am an ardent supporter of equality, and as such, I am principally against affirmative action. Affirmative action is equality in outcome, which is inherently unjust (a la Harrison Bergeron). Instead, we need to address the root cause of the inequality in opportunity. Allow me to illustrate.

Suppose we only educated those who were born in February in science. Those born from March to January do not have such the opportunity. The University of Science accepts students based on their merits; that is, their knowledge and abilities in science. A studentry that consists of the highest caliber students in this regard will perform better not only individually, but as a group. Like higher education in the real world, their ultimate performance is based on these factors, rather than an inherent potential for such knowledge and ability.

Anyway, under affirmative action, the University of Science decides to relax the requirements of students who were born from March to January, since they did not have the opportunity to attain the knowledge and abilities necessary for a University of Science education. Sure, qualified students who were born in February will not gain admission to the school, and lesser qualified students will instead gain admission, degrading the quality of the studentry and reducing the utility of education for all students, including the most qualified, but an equality in outcome will be attained.

This is wrong. The true problem is that those born from March to January do not have the same opportunity to learn science. This is the issue that must be addressed. They should be granted the equality of opportunity to attain the same levels of knowledge that are absolutely necessary for a competent university experience. This is why affirmative action is wrong, in any case.

Gareth321 · 2009-11-03T03:30:03+00:00

Dude. While I appreciate your vibe, this message won't reach a single woman. If you really want them to recieve this message, post it in /r/feminism

2009-11-03T04:17:52+00:00

I don't think the woman's opinion piece was a complaint against her daughter getting a rejection necessarily. I think she is just stating a reality that there are too many qualified female applicants and when you are trying to balance equality, this is what happens: more women are rejected.

I think her question can be applied to the larger question of should gender (or race) impact the application more than their qualifications?

Absolutely not. This is why I hate affirmative action. It tells someone that since they are whatever gender or whatever race, they may not have to work as hard to get into school or get a job. Instead if you are denied, you can play the race/gender card and call it discrimination! It's ridiculous!

On a tangent, I also hate scholarships that provide to a specific group. I get a butt ton of female minority scholarship emails. I am a minority female which is nice, but I shouldn't be given special treatment because of this. Scholarships should be given out based on merit with socioeconomic concerns. I do believe a person from a poorer family with exceptional merit should get a scholarship over a rich person with also exceptional merit. Mainly because going to college for a poor person may depend on the scholarship more than a rich person. But the person also has to prove that they are worth it.

Gareth321 · 2009-11-03T07:38:48+00:00

I don't agree with progressive integration at all; but in this case it seems it's necessary to point out the inherent issues to feminists. Women were unable to see the problems with progressive integration until it affected them. Therein lies the kicker, and we, as males, should be mindful of this lesson. Feminism couldn't/wouldn't approach the problem critically, and can't see their own hypocrisy. Feminism is dangerous, and it is out to get males.

Tilt168 · 2009-11-03T02:31:28+00:00

I agree that is is an important issue and think that it mainly stems from how our education system is now built with women in mind. I just wonder that if the ratio of male to female students chages drasticly won't it eventually shift back to a more even keel? I know when I was applying to colleges I specifically picked out schools with a higher female to male ratio...then again I was a 17y/o boy with girls on my mind. I'm against the idea of affirmative action but this might be needed considering how important "equality" and "balence" are to our current society.

Comments